Delhi District Court
Fir No:205/03 Id No.02404R6292722004 ... vs . Rajbir Singh on 28 May, 2012
FIR No:205/03 ID No.02404R6292722004 State vs. Rajbir singh
IN THE COURT OF MS. RACHNA T.LAKHANPAL, METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE: ROHINI, DELHI.
FIR No.205/03
PS Narela
U/s. 498A/34 IPC
ID No.02404R6292722004
STATE VS. RAJBIR SINGH
Date of institution : 20.09.2003
Date of Commission of Offence : 20.06.03
Name of the Complainant : MahenderSingh
Name, parentage & Add. of the
Accused :1. Rajbir Singh, s/o Late Chattar Singh
2. Sh. Suresh s/o Munshi Ram
3. Raj Kumari @ Rajbiri w/o Late Chattar
Singh
All R/o Balmiki Basti, Vill. Singhola,PS
Narela, Delhi.
Offence complaint of U/s 498A/304B/34 IPC
Plea of the Accused : Pleaded Not Guilty.
Final Order : Acquitted
Date for reserve of Order :28.05.2012
Date of announcing of order :28.05.2012
BRIEF FACTS & REASONS FOR SUCH DECISION:
1. The present FIR was registered at PS Narela against accused persons namely Rajbir Singh, Suresh and Rajkumari for the offences u/s. 498A/304B/34 IPC. The case was registered after the complaint was made to SHO PS Narela, Delhi by the complainant Sh. Mahender FIR No:205/03 State vs. Rajbir Singh 1 of 12 FIR No:205/03 ID No.02404R6292722004 State vs. Rajbir singh Singh.
Gist of the complaint is as under:
2. The marriage of the complainant's daughter namely Rajesh was solemnized with accused Rajbir in the year 2000 as per Hindu Rites and Ceremonies at Delhi. In her marriage, her father spent money as per his capacity. After marriage, accused persons started harassing her physically and mentally in context with demand of dowry. They used to taunt and pressurize her to bring one scooter from her parent's house. On dt.20.06.2003, at about 7AM one person namely Naresh came to the house of the complainant and told that his daughter is not well. At this, complainant Mahender Singh along with his cousin Sonu went to see his daughter at her matrimonial house. When they reached there, it was revealed that her in laws have taken her to hospital. At about 3PM, accused Rajbir and Suresh came along with the dead body of the complainant's daughter namely Rajesh. They told that Rajesh died due to fits. Thereafter, the matter was reported to the police.
3. Investigation commenced and concluded by filing the charge sheet. Compliance of section 207 Cr.P.C was made. Arguments on charge were heard and charge u/s. 498A/34 IPC was framed on 02.03.05 against Rajbir Singh, Suresh and Raj Kumari u/s.498A/34 IPC to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. In order to bring home the guilt against the accused, prosecution has examined as many as eleven witnesses.
1. PW1 HC Vijay Pal singh who was the duty officer and upon receiving tehrir from SHO upon the directions of the SDM registered the FIR.
2. PW2 Sh. Mahender Singh is the complainant as well as father of FIR No:205/03 State vs. Rajbir Singh 2 of 12 FIR No:205/03 ID No.02404R6292722004 State vs. Rajbir singh the deceased/victim Rajesh.
3. PW3 Sh. A.K. Saxena was the SDM, Narela who after reaching the house of the victim/deceased directed to remove the dead body to hospital for postmortem and later on recorded the stament of the complainant Mahender Singh.
4. PW4 Ct. Ajay Singh who upon the directions of the IO took the exhiit for depositing in CFSL Hyderabad and later on handed over the same to MHCR.
5. PW5 is Inspt. Mahipal Singh, who conducted the further investigation from 14.09.03 on the transfer of Addl. SHO. He recorded the statement ofthe witness and took the opinion about the cause of death after receiving CFSL result.
6. PW6 Ct. Kali Charan who along with ASI reached at the spot and took the dead body into their possession.
7. Pw7 S.N. Bhardwaj, Postmortem Assistent/Record Clerk, BJRM hospital who proved the postmortem report of the victim/deceased.
8. PW8 Ct. Raj Kumar who along with Inspt. Ram Avtar Meena conducted the further investigation as well as arrested the accused persons.
9. PW9 SI Mahabir Singh who reached the spot and later telephonically informed the SHO about the incident.
10.PW10 ACP Ram Avtar Meena who conducted the further investigation of the case, prepared the rough site plan Ex. PW10/A at the instance of ASI Mahabir, recorded the statement of the witnesses u/s.161 Cr.P.C. and arrested the accused persons.
11. PW11 HC Shardhanand who preserved the dead body of FIR No:205/03 State vs. Rajbir Singh 3 of 12 FIR No:205/03 ID No.02404R6292722004 State vs. Rajbir singh deceased Rajesh in BJRM hospital.
5. Statement of the accused persons namely Rajbir, Satish and Raj Kumari have been recorded u/s.313 Cr.P.C., wherein, they have denied the allegations made against them and had stated that all the members of their family are govt. servants and they never demanded any money or dowry article from the complainant or his family. Moreover, they used to provide financial help to the complainant Mahender Singh and his family. Deceased Rajesh was a patient of TB and she expired due to that reason which is duly proved by medical examination. Complainant falsely implicated them in this case to extort more money despite knowing very well the real cause of death of his daughter.
6. Final arguments have been heard on behalf of accused persons as well as on behalf of the State and record has been meticulously perused.
7. In the present case, chargesheet was filed u/s.304B/498 A/34 IPC. However, Ld. the then Sessions Judge, vide order dt.16.07.04, had passed the order on charge whereby it was held that case u/s.304B is not made out, after taking into consideration the postmortem report and FSL result. It was held that as there was no external and internal injury and there was no evidence of hanging of the deceased. In the FSL report common poison could not be detected in the vicra and the blood sample of the deceased, hence case is not made out u/s.304B IPC. Therefore, the Ld. Sessions Judge, taking into consideration the above said documents, held that the final opinion of the autopsy surgeon has to rely upon as per which death of Smt. Rajesh took place only because of Pneumonia and TB, the death was in in natural FIR No:205/03 State vs. Rajbir Singh 4 of 12 FIR No:205/03 ID No.02404R6292722004 State vs. Rajbir singh circumstances. Therefore, the file was remanded back to MM's Court and charge was framed u/s.498A accordingly.
8. In the present case, PW2 ie., father of the victim is an important witness of the prosecution. He deposed that on 19th day of summer season, around three years ago, his daughter Rajesh had come to his house in the morning around 11AM. She told him that she will be beaten by her husband if she will go back to her matrimonial home. Despite the same he took back his daughter to her matrimonial home, on the same day in the evening around 5PM. On the next day, ie., 20th day of the same month uncle (chaha) of accused Rajbir namely Naresh came to his home in the morning between 6 to 7 A.M. and told that his daughter is in critical condition and is about to die. When he reached the house of accused persons along with his wife and son, it was revealed that his daughter has been taken to the hospital. Till about 1PM, it was not revealed by the accused persons as to which hospital his daughter has been taken but someone from the village has told him that his daughter has been taken to hospital at Jahangir Puri. Thereafter, he has gone there along with his wife and son. He further deposed that infact his daughter was already killed by accused persons in the night itself. He has further deposed that his son in law used to raise demand of a scooter and Rs.50,000/ cash from his daughter. Upon reaching to the hospital, he saw the dead body of his daughter. He further deposed that his statement before the SDM was recorded and in his statement before the SDM, he also stated that after marriage, his daughter was kept happily for four years. Thereafter, she was harassed for bringing one scooter and Rs.50,000/ in cash. He has further deposed that he lodged one complaint against accused persons FIR No:205/03 State vs. Rajbir Singh 5 of 12 FIR No:205/03 ID No.02404R6292722004 State vs. Rajbir singh regarding the harassment of his daughter at Sonepat which is Ex.PW2/B but that complaint was not entertained by the Sonepat Police being the matter of Delhi Jurisdiction. One complaint was also lodged at PS Narela by him before the death of his daughter. He further deposed that his daughter was having some mark on her neck and blood was oozing out from her nose when he saw his daughter in the hospital.
9. In his cross examination, he deposed that accused Rajbir ie., husband of the victim was having two sons and one daughter from his previous marriage and the age of the children were 10,11 & 12 years respectively. He further deposed that he is a labourer and is earning Rs.100/ per day and there is no other earning hand in the family. He further deposed that no formal ceremony was conducted and only 1015 persons came to his and and they took his daughter after garlanding her. He further deposed that it is wrong to suggest that no dowry demand was made at the time of marriage of his daughter by her in laws. He gave bed, cooler etc to his daughter in the marriage. At the time of marriage, his daughter was virgin and accused was a father of three children and it is correct that he married his unmarried daughter with him thinking that he will take care her properly but the accused killed her. He further deposed that it is correct to suggest that he probably stated before the SDM that after marriage his daughter was happy for four years and she was not suffering from TB and Pneumonia
10. I have compared the testimony of PW2 with his initial statement made before the SDM. In his statement before SDM, he stated that his daughter was married about five years back at his place. Today around 7AM, a person namely Naresh belonging from village of FIR No:205/03 State vs. Rajbir Singh 6 of 12 FIR No:205/03 ID No.02404R6292722004 State vs. Rajbir singh accused came to his house and informed that his daughter is not well. He went along with his younger brother Suraj Prakash and his son and reached the village at around 10AM. Around 3PM accused Rajbir and Suresh brought the dead body of the victim Rajesh at home of Singhola village. They told that she suffered from fits and because of which she died. Thereafter, he went to PS Narela to give intimation of the same. He further stated that his daughter had come to his house on yesterday ie., 19.06.03 at around 2:30PM. On that day, she was physically sound. At around 5PM she went back to her matrimonial home and when we insisted her to stay, she said that if she stays here then her in laws will beat her. He further stated that till around four years of her marriage, behaviour of her in laws was normal. However, since last one year they used to beat his daughter. Sometimes, accused Rajbir used to say to his daughter, take rupees four thousands from me and remain at your parental home. Sometimes, he used to demand scooter. He had earlier beaten thrice or four times and thrown out his daughter. He had tried to complain before the SHO PS Rai, Distt. Sonepat. However, the same was refused as the matter was pertaining to Delhi Jurisdiction. He has stated that her daughter's in laws used to harass her and he suspected that her in laws had killed her by hanging.
11. As already discussed, ld. Sessions Judge had held after perusal of the evidence that the victim had died in natural circumstances and therefore it was held that charge u/s. 304B was not made out. Therefore, I will not discuss the testimony of this witness with regard to his suspicion regarding killing her by hanging.
12. As far as, other allegations are concerned, in his statement before the SDM he merely alleged that her daughter's in laws used to FIR No:205/03 State vs. Rajbir Singh 7 of 12 FIR No:205/03 ID No.02404R6292722004 State vs. Rajbir singh beat her and accused Rajbir thrown her out of the matrimonial house after beating her twice or thrice.
13. In his testimony before the court also, he deposed that accused persons used to harass her and torture her for bringing scooter and Rs.50,000/ in cash. He has not testified that on which date and occasion accused persons made such demand. At one place, he deposed that his son in law used to demand one scooter and Rs. 50,000/ in cash and at another place, he deposed that till four years of her marriage his daughter was kept happily and thereafter, she was harassed for bringing one scooter. He has not clarified that who used to torture and how accused persons used to torture her, who raised the demand.
14. In a similar judgment Hon'ble High has held that : In order to lodge a proper compliant, mere mention of the sections and the language of those sections is not be and end of the matter. What is required to be brought to the notice of the court is the particulars of the offence committed by each and every accused and the role played by each and every accused and the role played by each and every accused in committing of that offence. When we see the complaint, the complaint is sadly vague. It does not show as to which accused has committed what offence and what is the exact role played these appellants in the commission of offence.
15. Further more, in his statement before the SDM, he nowhere deposed that accused Rabir or other accused persons made demand of Rs.50,000/ also along with demand of one scooter. As regard the FIR No:205/03 State vs. Rajbir Singh 8 of 12 FIR No:205/03 ID No.02404R6292722004 State vs. Rajbir singh demand of scooter is concerned, it find place in the statement before the SDM and in the testimonies before the court. However, PW2did not disclose any specific date or occasion of such demand of scooter by accused Rajbir or by any other accused persons.
16. Moreover, it is not at all probable that a person from him the said demand is being raised is not at all aware of the price of the scooter. He was questioned regarding the price of the scooter and he deposed that at the time of marriage of her daughter the cost of the scooter was much less than Rs.5060,000/. The court can take judicial notice of certain facts and after taking into account that certain fact, it is a matter of common knowledge that at the relevent time ie., in the year 200203 the cost of the scooter was much less than Rs.5060,000/.
17. Furthermore, this demand is not at all seems to be probable, on the ground that PW2 himself admitted in his testimony that it was a simple marriage and accused had already three children. His daughter was virgin. She was kept properly for four years. In such circumstances, it does not seems to be probable that if such kind of marriage is held then there would be any dowry demand. It seems that marriage was held because the accused Rajbir wanted someone who would take care of his three children and father of the victim got married his daughter probably he was not able to give sufficient dowry to his daughter. Therefore, he agreed to marry his young unmarried daughter with a person having three children.
18. Not only this, the demand of scooter as a demand of dowry does not seem to be probable because of the reason that to bring an offence u/s.498A, first there should be a dowry demand. In a given case, where a girl, being quite young is married to an older boy having FIR No:205/03 State vs. Rajbir Singh 9 of 12 FIR No:205/03 ID No.02404R6292722004 State vs. Rajbir singh three children, in a simple marriage and where she is kept happily for four years, then this demand of a scooter (presuming but not admitting) does not seem to be any nexus with dowry.
19. Furthermore, it has already been held that victim died due to natural circumstances. There was no injury on her body. There was no common poison detected in his body. It is also shown that she was not tortured or harassed before her death.
20. Furthermore, although PW2 deposed that his daughter was beaten, harassed and thrown out of the house by the accused Rajbir. There was no such previous complaint in this regard. Although, PW2 deposed that he previously made complaint to PS Rai Sonepat, which was not accepted. Had it been so, then PW2 has not given any reason for not approaching the Delhi Police for redressal of his complaint. Furthermore, I have perused the alleged previous complaint also ie., Ex.PW2/B. Upon perusal of the same, it can not at all be conclusively said that the said complaint was written on 30.04.03. it is simply written on a paper. There is no stamp or any writing of the police to show the refusal by the police at Sonepat or to show that he had earlier visited the police officials at Sonepat regarding the complaint of harassment by in laws of his daughter.
21. It has been contended by Ld. APP that at one place, in his cross examination PW2 deposed, on suggestion of defence counsel that it is correct that accused was father of three children and he married his unmarried daughter thinking that he will take care her properly but the accused killed her. It seems inadvertently, this kind of statement got recorded. Upon perusal of whole evidence of PW2 it appears that suggestion was put to him that accused was father of three FIR No:205/03 State vs. Rajbir Singh 10 of 12 FIR No:205/03 ID No.02404R6292722004 State vs. Rajbir singh children and he married his daughter with him thinking that he will take care her properly and here PW2 must have voluntarily deposed that accused must have killed her but due to typographical error or inadvertently it got recorded on the suggestion of Ld. counsel for defence that the accused was killed. Taking into consideration all the circumstances, it can not be said that in his cross examination this suggestion was put to him that the accused killed her.
22. Further more, PW2 in his examination in chief deposed that one day prior to the incident, his daughter came to the parental home and she was physically sound at that time. Upon perusal of the testimony as compared to her earlier statement it can not be proved that his daughter had really visited her parental home. In his examination in chief he deposed that his daughter has come to his house on 19.06.03 at about 11AM in the morning and she told that if she goes back she will be beaten despite that he took his daughter to her matrimonial house. In the cross examination, he deposed that (Tai) aunty of his daughter namely Chappan went to see off her at her matrimonial home. In his statement before the SDM, he deposed that he insisted her to stay back at her parental home. She told that if she stay back, her in laws will beat her. In view of such contradictory statement it can not be conclusively said that she really visited the matrimonial home on 19.06.03. It seems that PW2 has made such statement to show that she was not suffering from any disease but in view of the contradictory statement it can not be said that she really visited the home. Other PWs are not eye witnesses. The SDM who had acted upon the statement of the victim's father, had not eye witnessesed any incident. He had relied upon the postmortem report FIR No:205/03 State vs. Rajbir Singh 11 of 12 FIR No:205/03 ID No.02404R6292722004 State vs. Rajbir singh and had relied upon the the statement. Therefore, upon his testimony the offence against accused persons can not be proved. PW4, 5,6 & 7 are formal in nature who had conducted the investigation ie., postmortem and other proceedings. Therefore, they have not eye witnessed the incident. Hence, prose has failed to prove offence of cruelty u/s.498A IPC upon the complainant's daughter. There are not proved specific allegation against the accused persons. By taking into consideration, evidence and circumstances into totality the offence is not proved beyond shadow of reasonable doubt.
23. In view of the discussion above, the prosecution has failed to the prove that the accused persons had committed the alleged offence. Accordingly, the accused persons stand acquitted of the offences U/s 498A/34 IPC. However, their surety bond shall remain extended till six months from today u/s. 437 A Cr.P.C. File be consigned to record room after necessary compliance.
Announced in the open court today on 28.05.2012.
(RACHNA T. LAKHANPAL) METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE MAHIL A COURT/ROHINI/DELHI.
FIR No:205/03 State vs. Rajbir Singh 12 of 12